Imperial Britain

The Empire in British Politics, c. 1880-1932

Andrew S. Thompson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317882527
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Histoire
• Subtopic: Histoire du monde

This new study considers the impact of the empire upon modern British political culture. The economic and cultural legacy of empire have received a great deal of attention, but historians have neglected the effects of empire upon the domestic British political scene. Dr Thompson explores economic, demographic, intellectual and military influences and he shows how parliamentary and party opinion interacted with imperial ideas and interests in the country at large. This is a major new book which explores the ideology of key imperial campaigns, and their popular support. It makes a critical contribution to recent debates -- about the importance of empire to the nature and development of British national identities before and after the First World War.

CHAPTER 1
Imperial Languages, Identities and Beliefs

A curious blindness seems to beset the average educated Briton when he is asked to picture to himself our colonial Empire. Almost instinctively he visualises Canada, Australia, and only quite recently South Africa - the rest he virtually ignores. (J.A. Hobson, 1902)¹

1 J.A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study (3rd edn, 1938), p. 131.

Languages of Imperialism

If we are to grasp the purposes and priorities of imperial agitation in Britain, it is vital to get to grips with the meaning of empire in contemporary political usage. Recent writing has emphasised the way in which core concepts like patriotism and imperialism were not only highly unstable, but frequently reshaped and redefined.² Moreover, the meaning of words like 'empire' and 'imperialism' did not change accidentally. However imperfectly, the vocabulary of politics reflected changes in society; while politicians themselves strove to bend such concepts to their will.

2 D. Eastwood, 'Robert Southey and the Meanings of Patriotism', JBS (1992), pp.265-87; H. Cunningham, 'The Language of Patriotism, 1750-1914', HWJ (1981), pp.8-33.

To the mid-Victorians the term imperialism was strongly associated with authoritarian methods of government, particularly those of Louis Napoleon. Part of the challenge facing later-Victorians and Edwardians therefore was to free the concept of imperialism from its uncongenial connotations of foreign, and especially, French rule.³ This had previously been attempted by the school of colonial reformers at the time of the Durham report in 1839. Their concept of a 'Colonial Empire' revolved around the self-governing colonies and Britain's responsibilities towards them. It was, however, articulated by a small elite, and did not begin to gain a wider currency until the late-1860s. Of particular note here is Charles Dilke's travelogue, Greater Britain. Published in 1868 after a two-year trip around the English-speaking world, the book made a lasting impression upon an educated reading public. Dilke's organising theme was the uniqueness of the English peoples and their superior civilisation. Yet no sooner had his idea of a 'Greater Britain' - or wider 'Anglo-Saxondom' - begun to catch on than it was temporarily eclipsed by Disraelian political rhetoric.

3 The seminal study of imperial language, which charts the changing meanings of empire during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, is that by R. Koebner and H.D, Schmidt, Imperialism. The Story and Significance of a Political Word, 1840-1960 (Cambridge, 1964).

When Disraeli became Prime Minister in 1874 he did not claim any detailed knowledge of empire, nor did he offer any definite proposals for future imperial policy. He was, however, an enthusiast for Britain's Asiatic Empire, which he believed to have boosted the power and prestige of Britain and of the Conservative party.⁴ Indeed, by closely associating British expansion with the affairs of the nation's greatest dependency - India - his speeches gave a new twist to imperial language.⁵ Whereas Dilke had appealed strongly to affinities within the Anglo-Saxon race, Disraeli directed attention to the military aspects of empire, to Anglo-Russian rivalries in central Asia, and to England's providential destiny to bring its 'superior' civilisation to non-European peoples.⁶ Through a series of actions - the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal Company (1875), the passage of the Royal Titles Act (1876), and the occupation of Cyprus (1878) - British paramountcy in the East was reaffirmed and reinforced. An indication of Disraeh's success in orientalising the Empire is given by the periodical press, which during the 1870s printed an unprecedented number of articles on Indian affairs.

4 C.C. Eldridge, England's Mission. Imperial Ideas in the Age of Gladstone and Disraeli, 1868-1880 (1973), Chapters 7, 8, and his more recent Disraeli and the Rise of a New Imperialism (Cardiff, 1996).

5 A. Hawkins, British Party Politics, 1852-1886 (Basingstoke, 1998), pp.195-6.

6 Although the famous Crystal Palace speech of 1872 broached the question of reconstructing the 'Colonial Empire' with reference to tariffs, defence and a representative council, Disraeli subsequently showed little interest in the self-governing colonies: Eldridge, England's Mission, pp. 175 6, 180, 231.

In the 1880s and 1890s the language of imperialism was again refashioned as imperialists experimented with a variety of new names to describe the evolving relationship between Britain and its colonies of settlement - 'Greater Britain', 'British Commonwealth', 'Oceana', and 'Britannic realms', to name but a few.⁷ Although we now live in an era when the word 'imperialism' is typically associated with the desire for territorial expansion, this was not the prevailing understanding of empire at the end of the nineteenth century. In the minds of most later-Victorian and Edwardian politicians, the true meaning and purpose of imperialism lay in the efficient organisation of the existing Empire, not its further extension. Thus talk of imperial reconstruction referred mainly to the Empire's English-speaking peoples. The concept of community was fundamental to this new imperial language. It, in turn, was predicated upon a deep-seated belief that emigration, not conquest, was the most genuine enlargement of British nationality. As young societies with short histories, the self-governing Dominions were widely referred to as 'sister nations' of the 'mother country' which had grown up rapidly from 'childhood' through 'adolescence' to the maturity of self-government.⁸ The question why the British Empire came to be envisaged in this way is addressed in the first two sections of this chapter. The third and fourth sections consider how imperialists planned to restructure the Empire, and how far their ideas were compatible with the national aspirations of the Dominions. A fifth and final section explores the difficulty of incorporating India into the idea of a British world, as well as changing attitudes in Britain towards that other home of the Anglo-Saxon race - the United States.

7 S.R. Mehrotra, 'On the Use of the Term "Commonwealth"', JCPS (1963), pp.4-5.

8 A.S. Thompson, 'The Language of Imperialism and the Meanings of Empire: Imperial Discourse in British Politics, 1895-1914', JBS (1997), p.175.

Imagining Empire: The Idea of a British World

The idea of a British world was a popular way of imagining the late-Victorian and Edwardian empire. Conceived as an historical community of English-speaking states centred upon Britain, this new imperial identity had both social and political dimensions. The social dimension stemmed from the familiarity - real or imagined - of the overseas 'British' societies in the Empire. In a speech to the Royal Colonial Institute in 1897, Joseph Chamberlain remarked on a growing tendency to speak of those who lived in the self-governing colonies 'as part of ourselves'.⁹ Many of Chamberlain's closest colleagues, including his 'Man Friday', Edward Goulding, were to play upon similar sentiments when campaigning for tariff reform:

9 Speech by Joseph Chamberlain as Secretary of State for the Colonies at the annual dinner of the RCI, 31/3/1897, quoted in C.W. Boyd (ed.), Mr. Chamberlain's Speeches, Vol. II (1914), pp.1-6.

No friendship with foreign countries can compare with the precious gift of our brethren - just think any one of us can feel at home in every state in our vast Empire the moment he sets foot in it - though one's whole previous life may have been passed miles away. They are men of our blood, speaking our tongue, glorifying in our traditions, confident in our imperial destiny.¹⁰

10 Handwritten speech notes on tariff reform, Edward Goulding (undated), Wargrave papers, 7/6.

The idea of a British world was given added piquancy by the use of the family metaphor, an extremely popular imperial idiom in this period. When speaking of the future of imperial unity, politicians like Milner drew heavily upon the language of kith and kin:

the idea which lies at the root of [Imperial unity] is that the scattered communities, which all owe allegiance to the British Crown, should regard and treat one another not as strangers but as kinsmen, that, while each thinks first of his own interests, it should think next of the interests of the family, and of the rest of the world only after the family. ... To my mind any weakening of that idea, any practical departure from it would be an incalculable loss to all of us.¹¹

11 'Tariff Reform', speech at Tunbridge Wells, 24/10/1907, in A. Milner, Constructive Imperialism: Five Speeches (1908), pp.20—1.

The Empire, then, was partly conceived as an English-speaking cultural community, sharing a common language, literature, and religion. But it was also envisaged as a political community of laws, ideals and institutions. Just as the Whig interpretation of history was fundamental to constructions of a British national identity, so it occupied a privileged place in thinking about the British Empire. The Empire was regularly referred to as the unique home of liberty, boasting a strongly indigenised tradition of parliamentary government, a profound respect for law and order, and a special aptitude for political organisation. Of particular note here is the Victorians' fondness for references to classical imperialism. In 1899, pro-war propagandists defended British military intervention in South Africa by likening the nation's imperial 'mission' to that of Peri clean Athens - in both cases, mature democracies had taken it upon themselves to assist younger nations to reach full citizenship. Neither was this belief in the political wisdom of the British only held by those on the right of the political spectrum.¹² Despite his dislike of the 'new imperialism', J. A. Hobson was at pains to differentiate between 'Imperialism' and 'Colonialism'. Whereas the former implied 'political bondage' as far as the major processes of government were concerned, the latter was recognised to be a 'natural overflow of nationality' as emigrants established 'local self-government in close conformity with the political custo...